Oh do stop. Wrist attacks are low percentage in unarmed MAs. People tend to think that way, erroneously, when you start talking about weapons. They take their empty hand knowledge and misapply it to weapons.

Well he shouldn't make shitty assumptions about weapon fighting if he doesn't actual do it. I feel like that is a pretty simple rule of thumb.

Well he shouldn't make shitty assumptions about weapon fighting if he doesn't actual do it. I feel like that is a pretty simple rule of thumb.

I am not the OP nor making a comment about weapons fighting. As I said the whole issue was ridiculous and I am not being serious here. Not making an analogy between low percentage hand to hand techniques and weapon fighting.

I am not the OP nor making a comment about weapons fighting. As I said the whole issue was ridiculous and I am not being serious here. Not making an analogy between low percentage hand to hand techniques and weapon fighting.

How dare you not take his feelings about his art into consideration.

Originally Posted by Mordschlag

Well he shouldn't make shitty assumptions about weapon fighting if he doesn't actual do it. I feel like that is a pretty simple rule of thumb.

I feel that posters should refrain from getting butt-hurt on bullshido "is a pretty simple rule of thumb," but that rarely happens

Also in the ridiculous scenario, the gun may not be aimed yet, it might be coming out of a holster with the hand back. The comment about lacking stopping power and going for the wrist is making fun of these discussions with bullets where some guy claims he will take a headshot. Then someone talks about expanding bullets vs full metal jacket (expanding sword comment). Nothing is ever resolved and anyway people just get the caliber they like for whatever reason. Not into any of this really, just find the historical aspect fascinating. Military history is interesting.

That's why I enjoy the articles and rarely post in here because it needs to stay clean. I was debating on moving the thread, then it sort of became serious, and then it became silly. Mordschlag decided it for me.

So you're admitting that your grade-based critique of swords is shitty but that your critique is still valid enough to claim that the gladius is not a good sword? And a good sword is still a good sword, regardless of whether or not a shield is often used with it. My point about beating the Celts is that the Roman military machine was well-rounded and professional, as you agree with, and as such the gladius was their professional weapon of choice after their spears were expended. They did well because they used solid weapon designs in sound ways and this includes the gladius.

So wait did you say you were a troll or that you actually don't know the meanings of things? I forget.

I don't want to argue because I don't see an argument, I have never and will never think the Gldius is a "bad sword" hell it's a fine weapon it was well made, simple enough that a roman soldier could learn to use it quickly and effectively but all I'm saying is that you have to be close to the opponent to use it, it's about 20-26 inches long yes it is wide and absolutely deadly. A thrust would stop some one but they would also be in range the reason I brought up the shield was that is what gave it the edge,so it is a short range weapon, that is all I was saying. My ratings are just my opinion really that is all they are, I'm glad to have a good conversation though thanks.

As I said it's broad and simple just my opion but the Romans didn't rely on the gladius, like all good armies their main focus was the spear,

No. Not if you're talking classical mid-republic Romans anyway. The Romans of that era divided their army, broadly speaking, into lightly armoured skirmishers armed with light javelins, heavy infantry armed with heavier javelins and armour, and cavalry. About the only units that retained spears for any length of time were the Triarii, and they were eliminated during the Marian reforms (107 BC.)

Indeed, the focus of the Roman Legions on lighter more mobile forms of forces can be seen as leading directly to the decline of phalanx and hoplite when they went on to crush the Macedonian successor states.

Originally Posted by Tameshiwhaty?

now I admit yes my reasoning is very simple and more then likely not the whole story but when I think of "stopping power" I think of range, ya know how far away is the opponent,

You keep saying that, I do not think it means what you think it means.

That you'd prefer to kill some guy when he's a few meters away rather than when he's up in your face swinging a big ****-off sword, is not an unreasonable position to take. But stopping power has a reasonably precise meaning, I recommend you stop using it.